Polk County to include Intelligent Design

Published November 30th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson


The Ledger reports that the majority of Polk County, Florida, School Board members support teaching Intelligent Design in addition to evolution in public schools.

It’s unclear if they’re prepared to change the definition of science. Some people are concerned that a supernatural theory will not mesh with the study of the natural world.

Board member Kay Fields said last week she wants intelligent design, which is promoted by some Christian groups, taught in science classes in addition to evolution.

“If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum,” Lofton said. “If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well.”

The board’s majority opinion is at odds with many in Florida’s scientific community who strongly support the new, more rigorous science standards, and say intelligent design lacks scientific credibility.

Perhaps Florida’s scientific community has not realized the type of genius arguments they’re up against:

“My tendency would be to have both sides shared with students since neither side can be proven,” [School Board Member] Tim Harris said.

“I don’t have a conflict with intelligent design versus evolution,” [School Board Member] Sellers said. “The two go together.”

“It crosses the line with people who are Christians,” [School Board Member] Lofton said. “Evolution is offensive to a lot of people.”

Pastafarians are concerned that the Polk County School Board is endorsing Intelligent Design, but ignoring our theory, even though it is widely endorsed by the scientific community.

I will wager that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can produce more academic endorsements for our theory than Intelligent Design proponents can for theirs.

My guess is that the Polk County School Board is just unaware of Pastafarianism. As a public service, I propose that we contact them, and let them know that there are other supernatural theories just as valid as Intelligent Design, primarily ours.

Contact info:

Those in favor of Intelligent Design:

Kay Fields (District 5)
[email protected]

Tim Harris (District 7)
[email protected]

Margaret Lofton (District 6, Chairman)
[email protected]

Hazel Sellers (District 3)
[email protected]

Lori Cunningham (District 2, Vice-Chairman) – undecided
[email protected]

Those not in favor of Intelligent Design:

Frank O’Reilly (District 1)
[email protected]

Brenda Reddout (District 4)
[email protected]

You can use this link to email all 7 School board members.

Please be respectful – remember we are not criticizing their beliefs, merely pointing out that there is another, just as legitimate, theory that should be included into the curriculum. Please leave a comment and tell us about your conversations with the School Board. Thank you!

The Ledger article can be found here.

*update* 12/11/07 – Their local newspaper published a story about our campaign here.

216 Responses to “Polk County to include Intelligent Design”

1 21 22 23 24 25 27
  1. DavidSSS says:

    What really gets me is that they want to teach ID as science. OK, sure, lets put ID in a science class. If it is a serious science class then ID would have to be treated as a hypothesis as there is no proof. Evolution, on the other hand, can be taught as a theory as there is proof. Why don’t they just teach ID in theology, it is a religious, or faith based, hypothesis, it belongs in religious instruction or theology, not science. ID also happens to be a reaction of the Christian Churches to evolution blowing their creation myth out of the water. It is a hypothesis tailored to trying to hold back the tide of evidence. Furthermore, it is treated as a joke everywhere but in the USA.

    The other thing is why do religious people want to convince others of their beliefs. You believe in your god and hypotheses about creation and the like, fine. But why do you have to try and convince me? I’m not running around trying to convince religious people not to believe in god, I assume it is their choice. Why can’t you leave me to my choice. What is your problem?


  2. MrMiami says:

    You are exactly right one problem is choice. Another problem is the science.
    IRT choice: You are viewing the situation through your choice lense insisting that your choice is right and want to limit other choices. For what ever reasons you made a choice and the presence of another choice challenges you to rethink your current position. Evolution is masquerading as a science. It is not a science or a theory. It is a cosmological revelation from its inception. Evolution is an alternative to other thoughts, principally Christianity. Evolution has theories and a science that are used to justify it. Evolution is challenged on its cosmological revelation and it is challenged on its science (its sense of order and complexity). You must be willing to reflect on challenges to your beliefs to either confirm them or deny them. If you cannot do that then your understanding has no substance.
    IRT the science: People make up thier science to fit their strange beliefs. It is certainly the case with Global Warming and so far it is the case with evolution. The very underpinnings of evolution are not even remotely true and honest science has shown this too many times. So all the higher level arguments are senseless because the foundation has been washed out. I cringe at these high school teachers who teach crap science and listen to them espouse their strange personal views as some sort of naturalistic axiom. Folks I cannot say this enough science only deal with complexity and order vice randomness.
    What needs to happen is ethics and integrity needs to return to science. Teachers need to teach on the basis of complexity and order. A humanitarian course needs to teach ideologies like Evolution, Christianity, buddism, Islam, etc… In fact, a comparative humanities course would do wonders in solving this problem. But the greatest thing we need to do is restore science to its prestine state untouched by evolution or other doctrines.
    Religious people share their understanding not much different than evolutionist insist on their belief. It seems all humans need a God and part of a life’s adventure is to discover who is that God. Even atheist have a God that is a NULL. They defend a NULL with ferocity despite claiming they have nothing to defend. But attack thier defensive points, mainly evolution, and they go beserk.
    In the end, humans cannot get away from “The God Issue”. It is clearly part of our make up. Some people defend God and other people deny God. This only tells me that there is something to deny and it must be God. So which side of God are you on?

  3. davehead says:

    how can you tell us that becuase we deny god there must be something to deny? your arguements are seriously lacking and i dont want to waste my time when all i will have thrown back is content taken from the bible which just happens to be the only unstable evidence your religion has. forget about this holy spirit for a minute and really think about where the bible has come from, who wrote it and what time of time frame it would have been made up over. think back to playing chinese whispers in school. unfortunatly delusion is wide spread in our species.

  4. MrMiami says:

    Stop referring to ‘my religion’ I never once stated anything about ‘my religion’. Just because I have knowledge and can argue from various positions does not reveal who I am. It only reveals that I have an understanding. It is because of my understanding that I have choosen something that is unknown to you.
    I have not thrown back Bible verses. So get off your high horse!
    We live in a polar universe; off or on, black or white, good or evil, male or female, left or right, up or down, hot or cold, God or no God. One cannot deny something if its alternative exists. It an old Greek philosophical argument.
    In the Christian worldview, the Bible was written over 2000 years and is a anthrology of 66 books penned by 44 different scribes. The Christians believe that it was inspired by the Holy spirit (coincidentally, there is an evil spirit too) in order to maintain a consistent message. In otherwords, humans wrote it down who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and God himself authored it. There is no single source of the Bible other than God. It was assembled from principally three different document sets. Two are dated around 1000 AD were used to organize the King James Version of the Bible. The other document set was discovered later, 1947, and was written at the time of Christ by the Qumran. The 1947 document discovery corroborated the earlier document discoveries validating the King James version of the Bible as an accurate account. Coincidentally, the document set written at the time of Christ is the Dead Sea Scrolls and was discovered by a nomadic sheppard searching for his lost sheep the day the U.N. voted to form the nation of Israel, May 14th, 1947.
    Christ is a lamb, church leaders are sheppards, and believers are sheep. Is it odd that a sheppard is searching for his lost sheep and finds the Dead Sea Scrolls at the same time Israel is formed as prophetized? It is a little spooky to me.
    By the way, the in the Christian Worldview God’s fingerprints are all over creation. In order to see this evidence you’ll need to study what the Bible is saying and have a firm graspof science. However, you seem so repulsed by the Bible that you’ll never known what it truly says. I also doubt you’ll ever have a honest understanding of science either. So you’ll probably believe whatever Star Trek fantasizes or so nut like Micheal Schermer who follies with people who will believe just about anything.

  5. davehead says:

    not trying to argue or be a dick now… youve studied way to much to arguments over the internet, so im guessing you have other reasons for studying this topic? if you have one what is your religion? or what are your beleifs? seems youve argued against points people have made with material you have read but havnt givin your own point of view. so… what are your beliefs on how the universe was created?

    i have to say sorry, after reading back i realised you havnt been throwing bible quotes as alot of people do.

  6. MrMiami says:

    It is true I have studied these topics and more. I prefer to keep my faith closely held at this time.
    My views of the universe’s creation process are emerging as I learn more. My original career was in Aerospace Engineering which has influenced my understanding tremendously. Knowing what I know after nearly 400 quarter hours of education of which I have extensive mathematics training and physics coursework there are several things I cannot embrace. They are:
    1. There is no such thing as true randomness. It amazes me how many people believe the natural ‘order’ is to be ‘random’. Those two conditions are mutually exclusive of each other! They cannot coexist except in the minds of humans.
    2. I cannot embrace the classic sense of a miracle which centers on a ‘god’ acting out of his sovereignty to do something that appears unnatural or magic – random. In time, even Biblical miracles are revealed to humans and a science or order to the event becomes understood. In the Biblical view, miracles are never the point either. They are attention getters to make a point.
    3. I cannot embrace the most of the ‘science’ of evolution. A vast majority of the material is simply is not science. Both Darwin, Dawkins, and Sagan are plagued by the same problem. They allow their cosmological views to influence their sense of science. In fact, Sagan was known to go on TV and make shocking remarks about humanity with bogus science. Sci-fi writer, Michael Crichton, wrote an interesting commentary called ‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’ which highlights some of the problems.
    The creation process may be something far different than evolution and even the creationist view of a potter at work. The natural process of creation may center on quantum discovery and string theory concepts. The process ‘ingredients’ may be light and information.
    What I am about to describe sounds like the ‘Holodeck’ in ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ but was understood long before the TV show fantasized about this technology. The natural process could be this notion of ‘compactness’ in which light waves come together to form a particle. Hence, the particle-wave theory of light. Information is then added that causes the particle to form in specific ways as it becomes more complex during a natural assembly process through the orders of magnitude (sub-atomic, atomic, mesophysical, molecular, physical, etc..). Additional information is then forward staged or buffered in a register of sorts in the form of DNA to facilitate the creation of life. Intelligent molecular machines (made of protiens and amino acids) known as nano-probes go to the DNA gather instructions then endow biological life. Hence, human natural existence may only be the execution of this process as through a quantum computer is executing some algorythm.
    While this explains the natural it does not explain the presence of a conscience or the human spirit. Also science cannot explain where the information comes from in the DNA? So the points on origin are not of science but a cosmological, theological, and philosophical discussion.
    In short, high school science gets it very wrong when they call evolution a science!
    Humans have three basic questions they need to answer during their lives and they are not science questions:
    1. Where do I come from?
    2. Why do I exist?
    3. What happens when I die?
    Evolution attempts to answer with a false sense of science.
    1. Where do I come from? Chemical and biological processes.
    2. Why do I exist? It happened out of random chance
    3. What happens when I die? decompose to inert matter
    The Bible attempts to answer with a revelation.
    1. Where do I come from? You were known before the foundations of time and placed into an embodiment by a patient and loving God.
    2. Why do I exist? The purpose of humans is to worship a God who desires to be among humans.
    3. What happens when I die? The body and spirit are separated for the purpose of judgement. Those who are saints are retunred to a new embodiment made perfect and prepared for entry into New Jerusalem. Those who rejected God are condemned. You don’t him then he does not want you.
    For reflective purposes I’ll compare this to Islam:
    1. Where do I come from? No explanation other than created by Allah. The Koran creation account speaks of the Earth on the back of a gallactic turtle.
    2. Why do I exist? No real explanation other than to escape those who oppress the Muslims, Christians and Jewish.
    3. What happens when I die? Allah decides who gets into Mulsim Utopia. The only assured way is to be a martyr or esentially commit suicide. Coincidentally, in Christianity suicide is a unforegivable sin – it is an assured way to get in to hell or the Hotel California (a song about living a material life then dying and going to hell).
    BTW Sura 112 in the Koran is direct denial of John 3:16 in the Bible. It cracks me up to listen to people argue that Islam and Christianity are nearly the same since they came from Abraham. There are no closest points of approach. The two are diametrically opposite on EVERY single point they make. Abraham’s mention is only token in Islam and his mother Ter was a moon worshipper and the source for the Crescent a top the mosque. Abraham for no real explanation rejected all the Gods being worshipped and worshipped only one God – the Judeo\Christian God.
    Anyhow, the point being in all this is that science deals with complexity and order. If that alone is taught then I don’t see a problem. Evolution is clearly a cosmological revelation and has no place in the public schools.

  7. MrMiami says:

    I type these responses late at night often and sometimes confound my sentences. I need to clarify a statement.
    Under the Islam comparison:
    2. Why do I exist? No real explanation other than to escape those who oppress the Muslims, Christians and Jewish
    Should read:
    2. Why do I exist? No real explanation other than to escape those who oppress the Muslims; namely the Christians and the Jewish.

  8. davehead says:

    i would have alot to write about it i had the patience to write so much and know where to begin.. i dont know how you do it. I do believe that existance is random and has no place for things such as fate, kama and all those sorts of superstition. I dont think i need to explain my view on miracles. Although evolution seems a bit far fetched i think is the best answer i have heard of so far. Im sure most of us understand that its entirely possible that can be scrapped and a new theory can take its place.

    one event i cant seem to embrace is the big bang. in my view for there to be a big bang there needs to be something there in the first place. maybe we are living in a universe that has always existed and doesnt have a starting point. the large explosion at the so called begining may have been just a large star big enough that we cannot comprehend.

    the reason i am so repulsed by the bible is that there is some pretty hard evidence that the universe is more than 15,000 years old. ei dinosours, light from distant stars and galaxies that have been travelling longer than that… although i dont remember alot of it i had read parts of the bible during primary school in riligious instructions and alot of it just seemed like fairy tails. for example.. noahs ark. 2 of every animal on one boat? is there actually enough water on our planet to flood the earth? and the 7 days of creation… this might sound like a petty arguement but with the size of the unirverse, the amount of stars that are out there and all the other possible planets, why did it take so long to create the earth compared to the rest of the universe? i dont think i remember the rest of the universe even being included. being 2 in the morning right now im a little tired and dont have concentration to word things properly but im sure you get my point. i believe science tries to give us answers and doesnt mind being proven wrong.

    science may not be able to explain the human concience but it may in time. just as we were able to discover what each section of the brain was responsible for. got distracted and now ive forgotten what i was on about..

1 21 22 23 24 25 27

Leave a Reply